Laserfiche WebLink
«0S>3081 Stoncbay Lofts <br />February 10,2005 <br />Face 4 <br />Buildiiifi Materials. The soulli- and casl-facing building facades arc depicted in Plan Sheet A-2, <br />showing 40-60% coverage by two ty|Ks oftextured cultured stone (applicaitUo confirm that <br />the south facade porch bumpouts are a different stone than the remainder ofthe huUdinfi <br />stone - applicant to have samples aimlable for the meetinf>) with the balance to be of fiber <br />cement stucco panel siding (James I lardi products). Soflil, fascia and Uiin will be maintenance free <br />prc-fini.shcd metal, shingles will be commercial grade asphalt shadow line (PlanningCommission <br />and staff s expectation is that these will be the laminated, raised textured shadow line, not the <br />painted shadow line) iuid windows lu e pro|K)sed ius pre-linished metal clad wikm I ‘single hung’ (my <br />assumption is that these are casements or sliders) divided and shaped as shown on Sheet A-2. <br />Applicant is aware of the City ’s past issues with the post-approval design changes that went on <br />with the Stonebay 2-slory townhomes. 'fhe City’s expectation and requirement will be to <br />include aJJ ofdic detail elements as .shown on the renderings and elevation views, in the final building <br />construction. <br />i <br />Visual nieinent.s. The architectural renderings show basically two window styles used througlioul <br />the building - a larger picture window system with ai\»led upper comers, and single, double or triple <br />windows with a vertically divided upper hair. icsc window elements add to the character and <br />visual acceptability of the design. The main entrance features pillars and a half-moon leature. <br />Gable ends each ap|x;ar to include a louvered panel feature. The variation in design elements, such <br />as bump-outs, offset gables, varied levels ofstone versus siding, along the length of the building <br />should help to decrease the perception of length. <br />FoundationGrading, Retaining Walls, 'fhe applicants have propo.scd to grade 3:1 or flatter slopes <br />along the north wall of the west wing and the northerly 3 sides of the north wing, rather than using <br />retaining walls per prior plans. 'Hiis will involve .some filling within the 26’ wetland .setback where <br />no fill is normally allowed, and filling within the MCWD’s buffer; however, there is no fill <br />propo.sed in the wetland it.sclf. 'Ilie building tbotprint and balconies will not encroach cither Orono’s <br />.setback or M( ’WD’s buffer. 'I his filling was anticipated during the earlier PUD approvals, and is <br />acceptable subject to returning it to a vegetated state after construction is completed. <br />Priorplans for this site have propo.scd retaining walls to provide fora building perimeter sidewalk <br />and individual unit direct accc.ss to grade. Thccurrcnl propo.sal will not provide accc.ss to grade <br />from the first story balconies. <br />Retaining wal Is are proposed in the area of the garage entrance. The City Ihigineer notes that i f <br />any ol the.se walls end up exceeding 4' in height, and a .separate engineered design and detail will <br />be required. <br />fi) Ifgde.striaijjeuh^>n. llie site has been provided with sidewalks as nece.s.sary to provide for lire <br />safetyand toallow easypede.strianacce.ss to the Kelley Parkwaysidewalks. fhe sidewalks on­ <br />site will have to be maintained in all .seasons forfirc salcty puipose.s.